Search (197 results, page 1 of 10)

  • × year_i:[2020 TO 2030}
  1. Tian, W.; Cai, R.; Fang, Z.; Geng, Y.; Wang, X.; Hu, Z.: Understanding co-corresponding authorship : a bibliometric analysis and detailed overview (2024) 0.08 
    0.07764676 = sum of:
  0.020753428 = product of:
    0.08301371 = sum of:
      0.08301371 = weight(_text_:authors in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08301371 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.056893338 = product of:
    0.113786675 = sum of:
      0.113786675 = weight(_text_:z in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.113786675 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.41697758 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross-disciplinary, and large-scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co-corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high-quality journals usually have higher proportions of co-corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.
  2. Wu, Z.; Li, R.; Zhou, Z.; Guo, J.; Jiang, J.; Su, X.: ¬A user sensitive subject protection approach for book search service (2020) 0.07 
    0.074211076 = product of:
  0.14842215 = sum of:
    0.14842215 = sum of:
      0.113786675 = weight(_text_:z in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.113786675 = score(doc=5617,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.41697758 = fieldWeight in 5617, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5617)
      0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 5617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03463547 = score(doc=5617,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5617, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5617)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 1.2020 17:22:25
  3. Yan, E.; Chen, Z.; Li, K.: Authors' status and the perceived quality of their work : measuring citation sentiment change in nobel articles (2020) 0.07 
    0.06588547 = sum of:
  0.017609866 = product of:
    0.070439465 = sum of:
      0.070439465 = weight(_text_:authors in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070439465 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0482756 = product of:
    0.0965512 = sum of:
      0.0965512 = weight(_text_:z in 5670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0965512 = score(doc=5670,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 5670, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5670)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
  4. Liang, Z.; Mao, J.; Li, G.: Bias against scientific novelty : a prepublication perspective (2023) 0.07 
    0.06588547 = sum of:
  0.017609866 = product of:
    0.070439465 = sum of:
      0.070439465 = weight(_text_:authors in 845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070439465 = score(doc=845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=845)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.0482756 = product of:
    0.0965512 = sum of:
      0.0965512 = weight(_text_:z in 845) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0965512 = score(doc=845,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.35381722 = fieldWeight in 845, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=845)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Novel ideas often experience resistance from incumbent forces. While evidence of the bias against novelty has been widely identified in science, there is still a lack of large-scale quantitative work to study this problem occurring in the prepublication process of manuscripts. This paper examines the association between manuscript novelty and handling time of publication based on 778,345 articles in 1,159 journals indexed by PubMed. Measuring the novelty as the extent to which manuscripts disrupt existing knowledge, we found systematic evidence that higher novelty is associated with longer handling time. Matching and fixed-effect models were adopted to confirm the statistical significance of this pattern. Moreover, submissions from prestigious authors and institutions have the advantage of shorter handling time, but this advantage is diminishing as manuscript novelty increases. In addition, we found longer handling time is negatively related to the impact of manuscripts, while the relationships between novelty and 3- and 5-year citations are U-shape. This study expands the existing knowledge of the novelty bias by examining its existence in the prepublication process of manuscripts.
  5. Wiesenmüller, H.: Verbale Erschließung in Katalogen und Discovery-Systemen : Überlegungen zur Qualität (2021) 0.06 
    0.057547398 = product of:
  0.115094796 = sum of:
    0.115094796 = sum of:
      0.08045933 = weight(_text_:z in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08045933 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 374, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=374)
      0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03463547 = score(doc=374,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 374, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=374)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Beschäftigt man sich mit Inhaltserschließung, so sind zunächst zwei Dimensionen zu unterscheiden - die Wissensorganisationssysteme selbst (z. B. Normdateien, Thesauri, Schlagwortsprachen, Klassifikationen und Ontologien) und die Metadaten für Dokumente, die mit diesen Wissensorganisationssystemen erschlossen sind. Beides steht in einer Wechselwirkung zueinander: Die Wissensorganisationssysteme sind die Werkzeuge für die Erschließungsarbeit und bilden die Grundlage für die Erstellung konkreter Erschließungsmetadaten. Die praktische Anwendung der Wissensorganisationssysteme in der Erschließung wiederum ist die Basis für deren Pflege und Weiterentwicklung. Zugleich haben Wissensorganisationssysteme auch einen Eigenwert unabhängig von den Erschließungsmetadaten für einzelne Dokumente, indem sie bestimmte Bereiche von Welt- oder Fachwissen modellartig abbilden. Will man nun Aussagen über die Qualität von inhaltlicher Erschließung treffen, so genügt es nicht, den Input - also die Wissensorganisationssysteme und die damit generierten Metadaten - zu betrachten. Man muss auch den Output betrachten, also das, was die Recherchewerkzeuge daraus machen und was folglich bei den Nutzer:innen konkret ankommt. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden Überlegungen zur Qualität von Recherchewerkzeugen in diesem Bereich angestellt - gewissermaßen als Fortsetzung und Vertiefung der dazu im Thesenpapier des Expertenteams RDA-Anwendungsprofil für die verbale Inhaltserschließung (ET RAVI) gegebenen Hinweise. Im Zentrum steht die verbale Erschließung nach den Regeln für die Schlagwortkatalogisierung (RSWK), wie sie sich in Bibliothekskatalogen manifestiert - gleich, ob es sich dabei um herkömmliche Kataloge oder um Resource-Discovery-Systeme (RDS) handelt.
    Date
    24. 9.2021 12:22:02
  6. Wang, S.; Ma, Y.; Mao, J.; Bai, Y.; Liang, Z.; Li, G.: Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities : On the rise of scrape-and-report scholarship in online reviews research (2023) 0.06 
    0.057547398 = product of:
  0.115094796 = sum of:
    0.115094796 = sum of:
      0.08045933 = weight(_text_:z in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08045933 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
      0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 882) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03463547 = score(doc=882,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 882, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=882)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:37:33
  7. Li, Z.; He, L.; Gao, D.: Ontology construction and evaluation for Chinese traditional culture : towards digital humanity (2022) 0.06 
    0.057547398 = product of:
  0.115094796 = sum of:
    0.115094796 = sum of:
      0.08045933 = weight(_text_:z in 1097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08045933 = score(doc=1097,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.29484767 = fieldWeight in 1097, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1097)
      0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 1097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03463547 = score(doc=1097,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1097, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1097)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.1, S.22 - 39
  8. Zheng, X.; Chen, J.; Yan, E.; Ni, C.: Gender and country biases in Wikipedia citations to scholarly publications (2023) 0.05 
    0.051282465 = sum of:
  0.030501183 = product of:
    0.12200473 = sum of:
      0.12200473 = weight(_text_:authors in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12200473 = score(doc=886,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.52344227 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02078128 = product of:
    0.04156256 = sum of:
      0.04156256 = weight(_text_:22 in 886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04156256 = score(doc=886,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 886, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=886)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Ensuring Wikipedia cites scholarly publications based on quality and relevancy without biases is critical to credible and fair knowledge dissemination. We investigate gender- and country-based biases in Wikipedia citation practices using linked data from the Web of Science and a Wikipedia citation dataset. Using coarsened exact matching, we show that publications by women are cited less by Wikipedia than expected, and publications by women are less likely to be cited than those by men. Scholarly publications by authors affiliated with non-Anglosphere countries are also disadvantaged in getting cited by Wikipedia, compared with those by authors affiliated with Anglosphere countries. The level of gender- or country-based inequalities varies by research field, and the gender-country intersectional bias is prominent in math-intensive STEM fields. To ensure the credibility and equality of knowledge presentation, Wikipedia should consider strategies and guidelines to cite scholarly publications independent of the gender and country of authors.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:53:32
  9. Yu, L.; Fan, Z.; Li, A.: ¬A hierarchical typology of scholarly information units : based on a deduction-verification study (2020) 0.05 
    0.04603792 = product of:
  0.09207584 = sum of:
    0.09207584 = sum of:
      0.064367466 = weight(_text_:z in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.064367466 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.23587814 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
      0.027708376 = weight(_text_:22 in 5655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027708376 = score(doc=5655,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 5655, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5655)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    14. 1.2020 11:15:22
  10. Milard, B.; Pitarch, Y.: Egocentric cocitation networks and scientific papers destinies (2023) 0.05 
    0.045685392 = sum of:
  0.024904111 = product of:
    0.099616446 = sum of:
      0.099616446 = weight(_text_:authors in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.099616446 = score(doc=918,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02078128 = product of:
    0.04156256 = sum of:
      0.04156256 = weight(_text_:22 in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04156256 = score(doc=918,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 918, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=918)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    To what extent is the destiny of a scientific paper shaped by the cocitation network in which it is involved? What are the social contexts that can explain these structuring? Using bibliometric data, interviews with researchers, and social network analysis, this article proposes a typology based on egocentric cocitation networks that displays a quadruple structuring (before and after publication): polarization, clusterization, atomization, and attrition. It shows that the academic capital of the authors and the intellectual resources of their research are key factors of these destinies, as are the social relations between the authors concerned. The circumstances of the publishing are also correlated with the structuring of the egocentric cocitation networks, showing how socially embedded they are. Finally, the article discusses the contribution of these original networks to the analyze of scientific production and its dynamics.
    Date
    21. 3.2023 19:22:14
  11. Manley, S.: Letters to the editor and the race for publication metrics (2022) 0.04 
    0.044789672 = sum of:
  0.020544844 = product of:
    0.082179375 = sum of:
      0.082179375 = weight(_text_:authors in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.082179375 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.024244828 = product of:
    0.048489656 = sum of:
      0.048489656 = weight(_text_:22 in 547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048489656 = score(doc=547,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 547, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=547)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article discusses how letters to the editor boost publishing metrics for journals and authors, and then examines letters published since 2015 in six elite journals, including the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. The initial findings identify some potentially anomalous use of letters and unusual self-citation patterns. The article proposes that Clarivate Analytics consider slightly reconfiguring the Journal Impact Factor to more fairly account for letters and that journals transparently explain their letter submission policies.
    Date
    6. 4.2022 19:22:26
  12. Hottenrott, H.; Rose, M.E.; Lawson, C.: ¬The rise of multiple institutional affiliations in academia (2021) 0.04 
    0.04273539 = sum of:
  0.025417656 = product of:
    0.10167062 = sum of:
      0.10167062 = weight(_text_:authors in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10167062 = score(doc=313,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.43620193 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017317735 = product of:
    0.03463547 = sum of:
      0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03463547 = score(doc=313,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 313, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=313)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This study provides the first systematic, international, large-scale evidence on the extent and nature of multiple institutional affiliations on journal publications. Studying more than 15 million authors and 22 million articles from 40 countries we document that: In 2019, almost one in three articles was (co-)authored by authors with multiple affiliations and the share of authors with multiple affiliations increased from around 10% to 16% since 1996. The growth of multiple affiliations is prevalent in all fields and it is stronger in high impact journals. About 60% of multiple affiliations are between institutions from within the academic sector. International co-affiliations, which account for about a quarter of multiple affiliations, most often involve institutions from the United States, China, Germany and the United Kingdom, suggesting a core-periphery network. Network analysis also reveals a number communities of countries that are more likely to share affiliations. We discuss potential causes and show that the timing of the rise in multiple affiliations can be linked to the introduction of more competitive funding structures such as "excellence initiatives" in a number of countries. We discuss implications for science and science policy.
  13. Wiesenmüller, H.: Formale Erschließung (2023) 0.04 
    0.041807897 = product of:
  0.083615795 = sum of:
    0.083615795 = product of:
      0.16723159 = sum of:
        0.16723159 = weight(_text_:z in 784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16723159 = score(doc=784,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = queryNorm
            0.61282945 = fieldWeight in 784, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Bei der formalen Erschließung bzw. Formalerschließung, die auch als formale Analyse, formale Erfassung, Formalbeschreibung oder (Formal-)Katalogisierung bezeichnet wird, "werden Ressourcen gemäß festgelegten Regeln nach äußerlichen, formalen Kriterien beschrieben und auffindbar gemacht". Diese Ressourcen können alle Arten von physischen und digitalen Objekten sein, die z. B. in Bibliotheken, Archiven, Museen oder Dokumentationsstellen gesammelt oder verzeichnet werden. Formale Aspekte bei einem gedruckten Buch sind u. a. der*die Autor*in, der Titel, der Verlag, das Erscheinungsdatum, der Umfang und die ISBN. Bei einer Skulptur sind es u. a. der*die Künstler*in, das Entstehungsdatum, Werkstoff und Technik, die Maße und die Besitzgeschichte. Bei einem im Internet zur Verfügung gestellten digitalen Foto sind es u. a. der*die Fotograf*in, der Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme und die Koordinaten des Aufnahmeorts, technische Daten zur Aufnahme (z. B. Belichtungszeit), der Dateiname, das Dateiformat und die Dateigröße sowie die URL und ggf. ein Persistent Identifier (z. B. DOI oder URN).
  14. Menzel, S.; Schnaitter, H.; Zinck, J.; Petras, V.; Neudecker, C.; Labusch, K.; Leitner, E.; Rehm, G.: Named Entity Linking mit Wikidata und GND : das Potenzial handkuratierter und strukturierter Datenquellen für die semantische Anreicherung von Volltexten (2021) 0.04 
    0.040229663 = product of:
  0.08045933 = sum of:
    0.08045933 = product of:
      0.16091865 = sum of:
        0.16091865 = weight(_text_:z in 373) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16091865 = score(doc=373,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = queryNorm
            0.58969533 = fieldWeight in 373, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=373)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Named Entities (benannte Entitäten) - wie Personen, Organisationen, Orte, Ereignisse und Werke - sind wichtige inhaltstragende Komponenten eines Dokuments und sind daher maßgeblich für eine gute inhaltliche Erschließung. Die Erkennung von Named Entities, deren Auszeichnung (Annotation) und Verfügbarmachung für die Suche sind wichtige Instrumente, um Anwendungen wie z. B. die inhaltliche oder semantische Suche in Texten, dokumentübergreifende Kontextualisierung oder das automatische Textzusammenfassen zu verbessern. Inhaltlich präzise und nachhaltig erschlossen werden die erkannten Named Entities eines Dokuments allerdings erst, wenn sie mit einer oder mehreren Quellen verknüpft werden (Grundprinzip von Linked Data, Berners-Lee 2006), die die Entität eindeutig identifizieren und gegenüber gleichlautenden Entitäten disambiguieren (vergleiche z. B. Berlin als Hauptstadt Deutschlands mit dem Komponisten Irving Berlin). Dazu wird die im Dokument erkannte Entität mit dem Entitätseintrag einer Normdatei oder einer anderen zuvor festgelegten Wissensbasis (z. B. Gazetteer für geografische Entitäten) verknüpft, gewöhnlich über den persistenten Identifikator der jeweiligen Wissensbasis oder Normdatei. Durch die Verknüpfung mit einer Normdatei erfolgt nicht nur die Disambiguierung und Identifikation der Entität, sondern es wird dadurch auch Interoperabilität zu anderen Systemen hergestellt, in denen die gleiche Normdatei benutzt wird, z. B. die Suche nach der Hauptstadt Berlin in verschiedenen Datenbanken bzw. Portalen. Die Entitätenverknüpfung (Named Entity Linking, NEL) hat zudem den Vorteil, dass die Normdateien oftmals Relationen zwischen Entitäten enthalten, sodass Dokumente, in denen Named Entities erkannt wurden, zusätzlich auch im Kontext einer größeren Netzwerkstruktur von Entitäten verortet und suchbar gemacht werden können
  15. Bullard, J.; Dierking, A.; Grundner, A.: Centring LGBT2QIA+ subjects in knowledge organization systems (2020) 0.04 
    0.038391147 = sum of:
  0.017609866 = product of:
    0.070439465 = sum of:
      0.070439465 = weight(_text_:authors in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070439465 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02078128 = product of:
    0.04156256 = sum of:
      0.04156256 = weight(_text_:22 in 5996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04156256 = score(doc=5996,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5996, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5996)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper contains a report of two interdependent knowledge organization (KO) projects for an LGBT2QIA+ library. The authors, in the context of volunteer library work for an independent library, redesigned the classification system and subject cataloguing guidelines to centre LGBT2QIA+ subjects. We discuss the priorities of creating and maintaining knowledge organization systems for a historically marginalized community and address the challenge that queer subjectivity poses to the goals of KO. The classification system features a focus on identity and physically reorganizes the library space in a way that accounts for the multiple and overlapping labels that constitute the currently articulated boundaries of this community. The subject heading system focuses on making visible topics and elements of identity made invisible by universal systems and by the newly implemented classification system. We discuss how this project may inform KO for other marginalized subjects, particularly through process and documentation that prioritizes transparency and the acceptance of an unfinished endpoint for queer KO.
    Date
    6.10.2020 21:22:33
  16. Cooke, N.A.; Kitzie, V.L.: Outsiders-within-Library and Information Science : reprioritizing the marginalized in critical sociocultural work (2021) 0.04 
    0.038391147 = sum of:
  0.017609866 = product of:
    0.070439465 = sum of:
      0.070439465 = weight(_text_:authors in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.070439465 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.02078128 = product of:
    0.04156256 = sum of:
      0.04156256 = weight(_text_:22 in 351) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04156256 = score(doc=351,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 351, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=351)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    While there are calls for new paradigms within the profession, there are also existing subgenres that fit this bill if they would be fully acknowledged. This essay argues that underrepresented and otherwise marginalized scholars have already produced significant work within social, cultural, and community-oriented paradigms; social justice and advocacy; and, diversity, equity, and inclusion. This work has not been sufficiently valued or promoted. Furthermore, the surrounding structural conditions have resulted in the dismissal, violently reviewed and rejected, and erased work of underrepresented scholars, and the stigmatization and delegitimization of their work. These scholars are "outsiders-within-LIS." By identifying the outsiders-within-LIS through the frame of standpoint theories, the authors are suggesting that a new paradigm does not need to be created; rather, an existing paradigm needs to be recognized and reprioritized. This reprioritized paradigm of critical sociocultural work has and will continue to creatively enrich and expand the field and decolonize LIS curricula.
    Date
    18. 9.2021 13:22:27
  17. Zhang, L.; Lu, W.; Yang, J.: LAGOS-AND : a large gold standard dataset for scholarly author name disambiguation (2023) 0.04 
    0.038071163 = sum of:
  0.020753428 = product of:
    0.08301371 = sum of:
      0.08301371 = weight(_text_:authors in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08301371 = score(doc=883,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017317735 = product of:
    0.03463547 = sum of:
      0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03463547 = score(doc=883,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 883, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=883)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In this article, we present a method to automatically build large labeled datasets for the author ambiguity problem in the academic world by leveraging the authoritative academic resources, ORCID and DOI. Using the method, we built LAGOS-AND, two large, gold-standard sub-datasets for author name disambiguation (AND), of which LAGOS-AND-BLOCK is created for clustering-based AND research and LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE is created for classification-based AND research. Our LAGOS-AND datasets are substantially different from the existing ones. The initial versions of the datasets (v1.0, released in February 2021) include 7.5 M citations authored by 798 K unique authors (LAGOS-AND-BLOCK) and close to 1 M instances (LAGOS-AND-PAIRWISE). And both datasets show close similarities to the whole Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) across validations of six facets. In building the datasets, we reveal the variation degrees of last names in three literature databases, PubMed, MAG, and Semantic Scholar, by comparing author names hosted to the authors' official last names shown on the ORCID pages. Furthermore, we evaluate several baseline disambiguation methods as well as the MAG's author IDs system on our datasets, and the evaluation helps identify several interesting findings. We hope the datasets and findings will bring new insights for future studies. The code and datasets are publicly available.
    Date
    22. 1.2023 18:40:36
  18. Belabbes, M.A.; Ruthven, I.; Moshfeghi, Y.; Rasmussen Pennington, D.: Information overload : a concept analysis (2023) 0.04 
    0.038071163 = sum of:
  0.020753428 = product of:
    0.08301371 = sum of:
      0.08301371 = weight(_text_:authors in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08301371 = score(doc=950,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.017317735 = product of:
    0.03463547 = sum of:
      0.03463547 = weight(_text_:22 in 950) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03463547 = score(doc=950,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 950, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=950)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose With the shift to an information-based society and to the de-centralisation of information, information overload has attracted a growing interest in the computer and information science research communities. However, there is no clear understanding of the meaning of the term, and while there have been many proposed definitions, there is no consensus. The goal of this work was to define the concept of "information overload". In order to do so, a concept analysis using Rodgers' approach was performed. Design/methodology/approach A concept analysis using Rodgers' approach based on a corpus of documents published between 2010 and September 2020 was conducted. One surrogate for "information overload", which is "cognitive overload" was identified. The corpus of documents consisted of 151 documents for information overload and ten for cognitive overload. All documents were from the fields of computer science and information science, and were retrieved from three databases: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, SCOPUS and Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Findings The themes identified from the authors' concept analysis allowed us to extract the triggers, manifestations and consequences of information overload. They found triggers related to information characteristics, information need, the working environment, the cognitive abilities of individuals and the information environment. In terms of manifestations, they found that information overload manifests itself both emotionally and cognitively. The consequences of information overload were both internal and external. These findings allowed them to provide a definition of information overload. Originality/value Through the authors' concept analysis, they were able to clarify the components of information overload and provide a definition of the concept.
    Date
    22. 4.2023 19:27:56
  19. Steeg, F.; Pohl, A.: ¬Ein Protokoll für den Datenabgleich im Web am Beispiel von OpenRefine und der Gemeinsamen Normdatei (GND) (2021) 0.03 
    0.034839913 = product of:
  0.06967983 = sum of:
    0.06967983 = product of:
      0.13935965 = sum of:
        0.13935965 = weight(_text_:z in 367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13935965 = score(doc=367,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.2728844 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051127672 = queryNorm
            0.51069117 = fieldWeight in 367, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.337313 = idf(docFreq=577, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Normdaten spielen speziell im Hinblick auf die Qualität der Inhaltserschließung bibliografischer und archivalischer Ressourcen eine wichtige Rolle. Ein konkretes Ziel der Inhaltserschließung ist z. B., dass alle Werke über Hermann Hesse einheitlich zu finden sind. Hier bieten Normdaten eine Lösung, indem z. B. bei der Erschließung einheitlich die GND-Nummer 11855042X für Hermann Hesse verwendet wird. Das Ergebnis ist eine höhere Qualität der Inhaltserschließung vor allem im Sinne von Einheitlichkeit und Eindeutigkeit und, daraus resultierend, eine bessere Auffindbarkeit. Werden solche Entitäten miteinander verknüpft, z. B. Hermann Hesse mit einem seiner Werke, entsteht ein Knowledge Graph, wie ihn etwa Google bei der Inhaltserschließung des Web verwendet (Singhal 2012). Die Entwicklung des Google Knowledge Graph und das hier vorgestellte Protokoll sind historisch miteinander verbunden: OpenRefine wurde ursprünglich als Google Refine entwickelt, und die Funktionalität zum Abgleich mit externen Datenquellen (Reconciliation) wurde ursprünglich zur Einbindung von Freebase entwickelt, einer der Datenquellen des Google Knowledge Graph. Freebase wurde später in Wikidata integriert. Schon Google Refine wurde zum Abgleich mit Normdaten verwendet, etwa den Library of Congress Subject Headings (Hooland et al. 2013).
  20. Hocker, J.; Schindler, C.; Rittberger, M.: Participatory design for ontologies : a case study of an open science ontology for qualitative coding schemas (2020) 0.03 
    0.03418831 = sum of:
  0.020334125 = product of:
    0.0813365 = sum of:
      0.0813365 = weight(_text_:authors in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0813365 = score(doc=179,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.23308155 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.34896153 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.013854188 = product of:
    0.027708376 = sum of:
      0.027708376 = weight(_text_:22 in 179) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027708376 = score(doc=179,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1790404 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051127672 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 179, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=179)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Purpose The open science movement calls for transparent and retraceable research processes. While infrastructures to support these practices in qualitative research are lacking, the design needs to consider different approaches and workflows. The paper bases on the definition of ontologies as shared conceptualizations of knowledge (Borst, 1999). The authors argue that participatory design is a good way to create these shared conceptualizations by giving domain experts and future users a voice in the design process via interviews, workshops and observations. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents a novel approach for creating ontologies in the field of open science using participatory design. As a case study the creation of an ontology for qualitative coding schemas is presented. Coding schemas are an important result of qualitative research, and reuse can yield great potential for open science making qualitative research more transparent, enhance sharing of coding schemas and teaching of qualitative methods. The participatory design process consisted of three parts: a requirement analysis using interviews and an observation, a design phase accompanied by interviews and an evaluation phase based on user tests as well as interviews. Findings The research showed several positive outcomes due to participatory design: higher commitment of users, mutual learning, high quality feedback and better quality of the ontology. However, there are two obstacles in this approach: First, contradictive answers by the interviewees, which needs to be balanced; second, this approach takes more time due to interview planning and analysis. Practical implications The implication of the paper is in the long run to decentralize the design of open science infrastructures and to involve parties affected on several levels. Originality/value In ontology design, several methods exist by using user-centered design or participatory design doing workshops. In this paper, the authors outline the potentials for participatory design using mainly interviews in creating an ontology for open science. The authors focus on close contact to researchers in order to build the ontology upon the expert's knowledge.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 147
  • d 48
  • pt 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 189
  • el 25
  • m 4
  • p 2
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications